HAIIAPHNK

The lion is gradually moving toward the goal. Now it is time to dock the paws.

Or am I wrong after all and there really should be a flat option there?

So, the drawings have arrived and now the huge part with coming up with the decor is solved. I now have the exact details of the decoration. But along with that came questions about the Fulminant's construction. Let's take a look at what the stern looks like on L’Ambiteaux ship. I want to draw attention to the construction of the side galleries. The upper tier with the dome is made in the form of a false overlay. The dome is flat, the window is actually an imitation. And the total thickness of the whole structure is quite small. And now let's look at the historical sketch of this ship. Here it is difficult to say for sure that the same dome is flat. And you can argue for a long time how it should have looked in reality? Flat or voluminous? On different museum exhibits one can see both fully volumetric constructions, where there are several tiers of closed balconies. And in the form of simplified flat domes, as the authors of the book decided to do. Now let's take a look at some fresh, hot drawings by Fulminant. The first thing to note is that the drawings were done in the same period. You can see that the ships were built at the same time and they were designed together and approved by the king also together. One can even combine the drawings with each other and see that in many respects they are very much the same in design. Only the decorations are different, and even then, they are made in the same style. But as for the drawings of the side galleries, they are different. Fulminant has a strange deformation in the vertical lines. The windows of the lower and upper tiers stand at different angles. And it's definitely not a defect in the scanning of the document. It's the way it was drawn. So why is the drawing different? L’Ambiteaux doesn't have this distortion. What was the artist trying to show? It seems to me that by using such distortions the artist wanted to show a volumetric dome. That both the lower tier and the upper tier were to be made in the form of closed lodges. And this is exactly what it would be more correct to do on the model. What do you think? I don't feel like doing just based on my opinions. I believe modeling should be based on correct knowledge. If it is about assembling a model ship out of the box, then there can be no claims. But serious work should be based on knowledge. And here I face the fact that book drawings will not help. It is necessary to find other information about how volume domes were properly made. For example, I have a question how should the wall on the balcony itself stand? Should it be one level line with the stern? Or at an angle? If someone has photos from museums where you can see this assembly closer, please show me. Or maybe you know threads on some forums where similar ships were built? Maybe someone has already shown how they solved this issue at their shipyard?

Decided to add this material. It's not a response to anyone's comment. And I should start by explaining the situation. This is a response from a customer from our correspondence with him. It is quite possible that for many people the content will not be something useful, as it was primarily directed to me, as a person for whom French speech and mentality is not native. And therefore not always understandable. So you can read about something that for you does not require additional explanations. In this case, let it be a small note that I leave in the topic for myself. So that in case of need, I know exactly where I can return to this material. It is much easier to lose in correspondence, there are a lot of letters, and it will be harder to find it later. Besides, the letter was translated into Russian by the author and I have to translate it again. And because of this, some nuances can be lost. So why was this letter needed, and what did I personally see the benefit in? It is absolutely logical that Latin is much more closely connected with many European languages than with Russian. Today, none of us speak this ancient language. But you may encounter words in it that have passed into your languages over time and are familiar to you. Which is much less common in my language. And the word "Fulminant" is not found in Russian in ordinary life. It may be known to doctors or physicists, in their terms this word occurs. But I'm neither a doctor nor a physicist. So I needed a translator. And that's where a little detective work begins. The translator gave me the result that in Russian the name of the ship means "lightning-fast". I'm not sure the translator translated what I was trying to say correctly. So I'll say it again, in a slightly different way. It's a word that consists of two words: zipper + carries, or "one who has zippers". But in Russian, this word is primarily used when they want to talk about very high speed. For example: this boxer has a lightning-fast reaction. That is, he reacts or attacks very quickly. Or: she answered his question with lightning speed. In short, in Russian, this word is primarily compared to the speed of lightning. And in our case, it is doubtful that the name of the ship was meant to indicate its swiftness. Such a meaning would be a mockery. A huge, clumsy giant that has the name Speed. Army humor has come up with much funnier sarcasm as well. But no one would joke like that on an official level. So the name "Fulminant" must mean something else. And if there was a connection to lightning here, it was not because of its speed, but because of its power. So the ship was saying with its name: I have a power that only the destructive power of Zeus can match. And here around the name of the ship on Russian forums began a real discussion, what exactly means the name. What the builders in the distant 17th century wanted to say, and how one could guess who should stand on the breakwater. There were so many different opinions. That was before the long-awaited sketches from the archives arrived. And that's when my customer read the arguments on the forum and sent me an explanation. Below I quote his words in full. And I really hope that the translator will do a good job (if there are grammatical or semantic errors in the text, it's not the customer's fault, but the translator's): Hi, Sasha; Fulminant means "burning flame" in Latin. I have circled all the symbols with flames in the original plan. It is interesting to note that these flames are very often elevated above the sphere. The combination of sphere and flame clearly represents a military grenade. I also took a closer look at the lions' heads: at the rear of the ship, they are indeed lions, as two protruding teeth are visible.... but on the sides (on the flanks) the figures no longer have teeth. These figures are called "fauns" or "grotesques" and are very characteristic of the rocaille style established by the naval sculptor Bérin during the reign of Louis XIV. That's the kind of writing that's going on. It was a very good addition for me. And thanks to him I now see and understand a little more. Before, I didn't pay attention to how many images of flames there are. It's even funny, I saw the small lightning bolts, but I missed the flames that were nearby. Once again I repeat that maybe for you all this was clear and well seen. But maybe you have not considered so detailed drawings, this information will be useful for you. P.S. The words in the letter about lion heads and fauns referred to specific discussions on the forum. One of the opinions concerned decorative elements on the lower tier of the aft windows. The person wondered if they were definitely lions. Maybe they are portraits of Louis 14? Such a symbol was widely used in this period. And that's what one of the panelists saw in the drawing. That would explain a little bit about why the letter said lions. It also shows how heated the debate was.

This is the moment. Got the photos of the sketches. They are published for the first time. I want to say thank you to everyone who participated and left comments. To everyone who offered their versions and helped to think over an interesting question. Because it was this discussion that made it possible to find these photos. The thing is that originally it was planned to put a ready-made figure on the breakwater. It was a very high quality sculpture, but it was very far from the meaning of this ship. So I want to say thank you to everyone. And in the end, the customer was so interested in the search that he decided to change his mind and decided that it made sense to make a new figure that would be made specifically for this model. And I want to say a big thank you to him. Thank you for being able to find these sketches. Now what's left is to make the main figure so that it's of sufficient quality. And it's worthy. I'm also very happy that it actually turned out to be Zeus. To be honest, I'm very pleased that I was able to correctly decipher the clues and guess what was actually on Fulminant. The first page in the history of this project can be considered completed. Now we can move on. Based on the new images, the design and construction of the stern ensemble can begin. Build balconies and side galleries. So that in the future it is possible to proceed to the decoration itself. So some construction time is needed to continue publishing. What else would you like to note? One mystery is solved, but there are others. And I'll voice the other riddles a little later. So I'll be glad if the communication continues.

What kind of sadistic footage is this, then? Why saw poor Gustav? I'll tell you about it It was an interesting moment for me. And it took me a long time to decide. What's the point, what is it about and why was there agony of choice? We all understand that modeling is first of all an art. We take away the models made for technical needs, different experiments. In the vast majority of cases we create images. Imitation of what exists (or existed). And like any image, ship models can be simplified. By way of another lyrical digression I will remember how once in my childhood I read somewhere in the newspaper an essay about an elderly modeler. I don't remember who they told about. I remember that the author of the article wrote that during his visit to the workshop, the elderly master mercilessly ripped off his model skin, which led the journalist in a state of horror. Why, it was beautiful as it was? The modeler replied that he had recently found information that the real sailing ship was built of a different wood. And the planking of his model turns out to be erroneous. It was not so (say from pine), and should be oak or bamboo (again conditionally). So everything will have to be redone. Modeler, in his opinion, must exactly repeat the historicity. I don't know if there was actually such a dialog or if the journalist made it all up? At that moment, in my young years, I did not see anything strange in this event. In my eyes, the elderly master was a kind of hero. He was ready to make sacrifices, to remake for the sake of historical truth. Cool! Now I realize how naive I was. I understand that a modeler can deviate from historical realities. To change by virtue of taste or idea material of plating, on tiny ships in a bottle instead of small yuphers to make drops of tinted glue. And that's fine. And I already look at the elderly craftsman with different eyes. Now I would probably first of all think about how good it is that Sensei chose a sailboat for the model and not a submarine or an icebreaker. Otherwise, all of a sudden he decided to make nuclear reactors with handfuls of plutonium. For the sake of credibility. I'd leave room for admiration, though. If a person can make a model out of oak so that in the end the fractional texture of the wood remains proportionate and does not spoil the overall appearance, then he really is a master. Isn't he? Anyway, we all choose the degree of simplification on our models. And now I am also faced with a choice, but what exactly do I want to show? To what degree do I want to go into detail? What exactly will my Gustav be like? After all, he could be the lion that was just carved. And the ship is due to be launched tomorrow. And I could leave it wooden, or I could paint it, making it look exactly as it did before I died. I can also make Gustav, who was pulled up from the bottom. With the wounds, the chips. And that's when I took a closer look at the original. The beauty of it was that you could see exactly what the structure looked like. Separate handles and legs. But that's not all. Take a look at these shots: This angle was already there last time. But now I've pointed out the seams. Here they are in the other photos: That is, in reality the figure was not one piece. The mane, the back of the head were docked in separate pieces. And where the blue arrow is placed you can see the places of chipping when part of the overlay flew off. And it's clearly visible. Here is another angle where you can see it even better: So I was wondering. What am I going to do? Would I now have to mercilessly chop down the initial figure to make it look like the historical original? The first shots with the hacksaw leave no room for intrigue - that's what I did. But at the same time, I didn't. What's that? I removed the top of the head completely. I glued an implant in its place, and then brought it to the right condition. I didn't saw off the sides and the mane. Halfway through I examined everything and decided that I would do it simpler. It is not necessary to cut everything completely to simulate seams. The thickness of the cut is thin enough that it looks just like the original. If I cut it off completely and glue it on, the gap will be gone. Do I have to do that? No. So I started looking at other angles. I looked to see if I could see the gap everywhere. Logically, it should look different. In some places, the extra pieces fit closely together and there's no gap at all. And somewhere it is already very visible. That's what I tried to repeat. This is a story about making it.

I have a very important message! Thanks to Russian and Ukrainian modelers and a similar topic on the Russian forum found data, which revealed that sketches for the Fulminant exist. They were created in the 17th century to coordinate with Louis 14 to build a new ship. Moreover, they were preserved and registered in the French archive. And it was these very registration numbers that were found. And the customer made a request for these sketches. We've already received a reply from the archive. They said that they will satisfy this request. Moreover, it turned out that since the 17th century no one has touched these sheets. I'm sitting here imagining that the last time Louis saw these drawings. It's a joke, of course, but it's close to the truth. So very soon I will be able to see what I have been thinking about and trying to imagine. What is really there? Have we collectively deciphered the available data correctly or not? Is there a Zeus or a lion or something else? So now we just have to wait a little longer. I really hope it all works out. There are fears and worries that over such a long period of time the sheets with sketches have deteriorated and it will be impossible to use them. I realize that working with archives is not something unique. That this is the norm. But for me this moment is unique.

What gorgeous drawings! Thank you! They are exactly the basis for seeing the very problem I have in front of me. So much of the documentation allows only a vague definition of the decor. You can see that there is a lion on the breakwater, but it is very vague. In fact, the execution according to the sketches is a complete interpretation, one's own decision, a personal variant. Which is also quite acceptable and very interesting. For this purpose, I search in other kinds of art, such as sculpture or architecture. I don't think that in this respect the ship's image of a lion will be in strong contradiction to the lions that can be found in castles or other buildings. The merlion image (combining lion and fish, lion mermaid) is very interesting. I will definitely have one of these lions in my collection. So far I have plans to make a Danish lion in this style. But it is still ahead, there is time for thinking.

This is by no means a complaint. I understood exactly what you were trying to say. Any language has its own nuances and different words are perceived differently in different countries. I know that my English is very weak. And I can only communicate through an interpreter. Which means I can't be sure exactly how it translates my words. And I want to warn you in advance, so that I don't get into an awkward situation. P.S. You should have seen what a battle was formed on the Russian forum just around the very name Fulminant. This word in Russian is not used in ordinary life, and literal translation can convey several completely different meanings. And even between people speaking the same language there are cases when there are misunderstandings and everyone sees different meanings in one word. I am very glad that you are helping to understand this topic.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the lion. Stylistically, it is reminiscent of the French school. You suggested it as an option for the French lion? Is that correct? I am indeed looking for good references for such a lion. It won't be started for a while yet, but the search should be done now. I think I mentioned in another thread about Fulminant that French lions are not so easy to deal with. Perhaps you decided to share after that. To clarify a bit. I have some number of sketches where you can see what lions looked like in France in the 17th century. That said, not many models at all where you can see what they looked like already as a finished figure. The French school of drawing is very progressive. And French lions are a very correct depiction of these animals. And next to the others there is a very big difference. And you want to find something more similar, so that the French version is a little... how can I put it? Scary. Or funny. Even at the Paris Maritime Museum, I couldn't find a perfect one. So if anyone has good photos of French ship models, which can be used as a guide, I would be grateful for such hints.

I decided to make a small addition, it’s on a completely different topic. When I translated the last post and began to read it, I involuntarily smiled. And I noticed this sentence: The fact is that the translator conscientiously translated this word and it amused me. The fact is that the literal translation means this: or that: And I immediately thought what the rest are reading when I write. It is clearly noticeable that I am unable to communicate in short phrases. And to get my point across, I need to write a lot of text. This means that it may end up containing a lot of not very correct words and expressions. So I apologize if I am difficult to read and sometimes some sentences may be strange or funny. This is not on purpose.

As for the lion figure seen in the book, that's a separate issue. It is interesting to understand the reason for this decision. In "The Ships of Trouville" it was said that the figure of the lion as the main decoration of the ship was a decision that looked one hundred percent correct. And there wasn't even any discussion or debate about it. It didn't even have any other competitors. You could say that the lion passed without any exams or interviews. Which is already curious. So why did it happen this way? After all, we now have documents that clearly show exactly what stood on the breakwater at L’Ambiteaux. And it wasn't a lion. So the authors didn't have access to these sketches when the book was written? Because otherwise they would have just put the winged figure there. What could be the reason? When I read the book, it said in a separate thought that they wanted to dedicate the book to a number of ships created under Louis. And the authors wanted to create a certain general image of the entire 1st rank. However, this task was impossible, or practically impossible. Simply because it is a classic modern man's desire. We live in a world in which we ourselves have divided everything into standards, clear boundaries and regulations. It is natural for us to perceive the world in this way. We do not know any other way. Or we perceive the other as chaos. And in the 17th century (and later too) everything was different. And there was no clear standard. Different ships of the same class or rank were only united by approximately the same amount of artillery. And that was arbitrary. The authors spent a lot of effort and time to find and study a whole library of data on different ships and came to the conclusion that they have undertaken an impossible task. In the end, they decided to combine the most common solutions somehow. That's how their L’Ambiteaux came to be. He was a model assembly. Which can already be called a victory. As a result, we can look at a whole class based on one ship. But at the same time, the decision that the authors made was also a disadvantage, because the L’Ambiteaux is not an exact copy of its historical original. Now I will try to connect everything written with the question about the lion. Perhaps the avalanche of various questions and problems was so great that the authors were simply busy with much more significant decisions. And when they came to the question of decoration, they simply did not have enough diligence for this minor nuance. And if we also take into account that they did not find historical sketches, then everything falls into place. We are essentially in the same condition. We don't know what was actually done and are trying to use logical thinking to find an alternative solution. And it's even easier for us. In the case of Fulminant, everything is (I think) more obvious. One way or another everything revolves around lightning, force, power, etc. And with L’Ambiteaux, things are far from that obvious. Ambition can represent a lot of things. Including Mufasa fits under this symbol ;-)))). Or maybe it was for a different reason? Maybe, since the whole Ambition was prefabricated, its decor was also made as a kind of generalization? I don't know the exact answer. And I can only guess. In any case, I am very grateful to the authors of the book that I can now read about ships of that era. I can clearly see the comparisons. And even have ready drawings on which I can safely start building a model. I am also very grateful to the craftsmen, who are not just "blindly" building on the basis of the drawings, but have also done their own research and made adjustments, which undoubtedly improved the ship. When I saw this beautiful winged sculpture for the first time, I had a dream to try to carve something similar one day. It came true and now I am pursuing it, and I very much hope to be able to make another figure as well, which is the closest relative to L’Ambiteaux.

I'm doing a lot of thinking and trying to draw what the main figure on Fulminant might look like. But there is no way I can go further than the figure of Zeus. I can't manage to replace his figure with other objects. You very correctly wrote that the ships built during this period had names that were meant to glorify Louis 14. He was a personality who was very fond of himself and was vain. So there must be something very high-minded and pompous on the Fulminant's breakwater. As much as I fantasize, I'm not very good at coming up with a replacement equal to Zeus. The only thing I can think of is an eagle. He can be shown sitting on a cloud and have lightning bolts around him. You can make him guarding a shield with lilies. This is the only version that comes to my mind. But I don't see that it's the perfect version myself. It loses out to Zeus. The eagle is still only a secondary character, he can't be an equal substitute for Zeus. Yes, if I remember myths, Zeus himself took the form of birds, you can look for information whether he turned into an eagle. But even if I find exact confirmations of this version, still I cannot say that it can be better than Zeus himself. The eagle as a symbol is more suitable for Bonaparte, he had a predilection for these birds. But Louis? I don't know. I'm not sure. Yeah, it's a powerful and predatory bird. Yes, it has an ancient past, and the Romans used eagles as a symbol of their power. And Louis could compare himself to the emperors of the past, imply that he was their equal, all the rulers of the day did. Yes, the eagle can be connected logically with Zeus, because we can not go far from this image. But still, I do not believe that there could be an eagle there. Zeus is much better! Logically, that's who should be there. And just like on the Ambitious he should be a waist-high figure, and below that turn into an ornament. Ah, if I had the chance to see what was really there? Could the artist and author of this ship's decorations have found a better way than Zeus? And if Zeus is there, does that mean there could be just one human figure, which is not supported by such an image anywhere else? My eyes are already rippling with hundreds and thousands of drawings of different ships. I can't find strong enough evidence. And it's driving me crazy. I guess I'll settle on the Zeus. I can't think of anything better. I'm not fit to be Louis' court painter.

Thank you so much for participating. Fresh thoughts from the outside help a lot. And you have a beautiful thought. However, here it is important to remember the laws, according to which all the decor on the stern is built. The higher it is, the more significant the place. Above the aft windows is the most important place where the central figure is placed. Below and on the edges of it will be placed simpler figures. For example, these are the companions of the main figure or allegories that reveal the story encoded in the overall ensemble. And the very bottom is filled with simple decorations. These are either patterns or some wildlife, which is quite insignificant. At times, defeated enemies or those who are prey were placed there. As in the case of L’Ambiteaux, the lowest creature there is a fish. In the case of the Fulminant, the eagle is Zeus' companion, his companion. And to place it at the very bottom would be tantamount to an insult. If you pay attention to the sketch of Fulminant, it is already drawn in what style the artist thought. It's ornamental... I don't know how to spell the word to make it clear. Let it be something like a flower cachepot decorated with stylized vegetation. It is a complement to the upper corner elements. There's something like columns. I think these "cachepots" are the lower hemispheres of the side galleries. So at least there are no additional questions about that. And there are enough of them with the side galleries. I will develop this theme a little later.

Yes, you're right. It's a challenge. When you want to do it right and not just do something like this. then you have to look for sources, look at analogies and prove (at least to yourself) that this is logical and justified, and this is not. Indeed, the closest example to search for is L'AMBITIEUX. But there are many nuances to be considered in this monograph as well. And since we are talking about this twin ship, I will voice one more mystery: There is a winged figure on the breakwater of the L'AMBITIEUX. Let's call it an Angel. And if we look at the whole ensemble of decorations of this ship we can notice that human figures are found in other places. There are also human characters on the stern. All in harmony. But if we look at the Fulminant, the only thing that can be used as a graphic art document, we see one important difference! There are no human figures on the entire stern, not once and nowhere. Any "living" characters we can discern are eagles. And the lion heads on the balcony railing. And the question arises: can there be a human figure on the breakwater if it is not supported by similar figures anywhere else? How logical and correct would it be? Has it been done this way? And if there should be something else there, then what could it be? After all, any other figure immediately ruins the whole logical chain. How to show the main lightning wielder without showing him himself? Should we put an eagle? Or something ornamental, for example something like a shield with a coat of arms, like Marcel's. This is such an aesthetic and logical conundrum. I'll mention the rest later, or I'll drown in questions. Anybody have any thoughts?

Yes, exactly. But it's not that simple. There's another mystery here.

Yes, you're probably right. Indeed, if the head will be spoiled, it is already necessary to take a new blank. I have not thought about it, but it is impossible to do otherwise.

Yes, you're right. Any work is an interpretation of a particular person, a particular master. When making this lion, I had the opportunity to take a closer look at exactly what was actually on the ship. When you make a work based on drawings, it looks very different. There, it's about 70% personal fantasy. But here I had the opportunity to go the other way and try to make a copy. In my mind, I could follow the same path that the carvers in Stockholm once did. I couldn't miss this opportunity. Plus I like to share not just the result, but the process. For example, when we eat, we get more satisfaction from the process itself, not from being full at the end. I have different emotions and thoughts while carving. And it is more interesting for me to show what happened during the work. To describe the thoughts that arose at that moment. In some cases it was fear and anxiety, and in some cases it was joy or surprise at the discovery. I think it's more interesting that way. And for me to show. And for others to watch. Maybe it will be of practical use to someone.

Indeed, the Zeus version sounds very strong. All the available hints tie together. The name Fulminant reminds us of this character in the first place. And the details on the stern of the ship make this version even more probable. The coat of arms with royal lilies is the center of the composition. He soars in the clouds and throws lightning. The same lightning can be seen below, there are bundles of fire and lightning, which again allude to Zeus. Also below you can see eagles. And this is again a reference, because the eagle was a companion of Zeus. So everything really points to this ancient celestial.

So I had to wonder if I should keep the asymmetry myself. The figure is small, you do not need to run around it, all the irregularities can be clearly visible. I'll take a picture, people will look at it and say that you have, say, hands from... your back. In the end, I decided that I'll do it the way I see it. And different eyes with a crooked fit. And asymmetrical cheekbones. And the rest of it. First of all, that's how it is in real life. And second of all, I figured the curvature wouldn't be so jarring in the end. Each of us has our own asymmetry in the face. Eyes slightly different, mouth slightly angled, and so on. But we look at each other and don't notice these disadvantages. And even on the contrary, if you accurately reflect the right half of the face, it will be perceived unaccustomed. And with this conclusion I started the first elaboration of my Gustav's face or muzzle.

Well, here comes the carving. On the one hand it is always a very impatient time, you want to start getting to the most interesting things as soon as possible. On the other hand, it's also the scariest stage. How much to cut so that it doesn't come out too much? I don't want to mess up. That's why it's always the most difficult and hated period. I always start at the head. I won't tell you exactly why. I'm used to it. Model ships are inextricably linked to history. We make something that existed long ago. And sooner or later many craftsmen face the question: what is the right way to make a model? What is better, when every smallest detail is made with machine precision and all identical elements cannot be distinguished from each other? Or it is more correct to do so that the flaws were visible. Irregularities, roughness in processing and so on. What is the best way? Especially these reflections arise under the influence of modern historical films. If the plot is related to the Middle Ages or other eras, one thing often catches the eye. It has become very fashionable to show knights, Vikings and so other of our ancestors in coarse clothing that looks more like rags than clothes. If it's a castle or a house, it's all rough, too, between the logs of the slots in which even a hand can slip through. And so on. But this is not how our ancestors were shown. On the contrary, old movies about history, children's fairy tales were filled with beautiful characters. Even if they showed some peasant girl in a fairy tale, she was clean and well-groomed. Her hair didn't stick out in different directions like an explosion in a pasta factory. Knights wore shiny armor. So what was the right thing to do? Sure there was dirt and cheap plain clothes, but can we say that people lived like characters from Mad Max? And going back to the topic of modeling, that question would be: what did ships actually look like? And since I'm primarily interested in carving here and now, I'll move the above to carving quality. What is the right way to do carving so that it is as close as possible to what was done back in the day? What was it like? And there can be two camps, two opinions here. The other pole may say that it is not so. Yes, it is silly to talk about the lack of skill, there were very good craftsmen. But as a rule, they worked in other industries. For example, a very talented blacksmith did special orders for kings and rich persons, making some armor with fine artistic chasing and decorations. Stonemasons and carpenters who were especially gifted were employed somewhere in the design of temples or the same rich people. Ships were made by other people, here in this time period it was not so important to have perfect quality in decoration. And they did it with axes, roughly and quickly. All the same, all the decorative elements will be high up, who will look at them closely? So who's right? What's the right way to do carving on a ship of this period? Rough or precise, with perfect symmetry? With good detailing or only slight hints to show features on the form? And now I had a unique opportunity. To examine what ship sculpture was really like. Not theoretical, based on drawings. but the real thing, preserved under the dust of centuries. You can not just admire it, you can study it. And not only you can. You must! And it is an interesting occupation. And what can we say, who is right? In short, we can say that on the example of Vasa both points of view proved their rightness. Those who claim that ship decorations were really masters can easily show examples of fine work. For example, lion faces on the cannon hatches. Or the stern carvings. On what to point a finger will find another camp: here crooked, there obliquely. My vested interest is Gustav. And I was interested in looking at him and thinking which camp to join? For example, I suggest you look at this photo: I showed what I was interested in. See the curvature of the eyes and the different construction of the cheekbones? When you have photos in front of you, and you use them for your work, you want to have more of them. But that's where the problems arise. Because the photos were taken in a museum where a special light is on display, it interferes with the "drawing" of the form. You look at two similar photos. It looks like a similar angle, but still on one frame you can make one conclusion (where there are complexities, and where concavities), and on the neighboring frame everything looks completely different. It's enough to make the shadows lie a little differently, and already impressions about the shape will change. In the same way here, I am well aware that in this shot the whole problem may be in the light. And in fact there may be no curvature there. It's just an impression. Or maybe there is. Maybe Gustav has a crooked face. And it's not just the shadow play that gives that impression.

Thank you for your appreciation. I too hope the project with Fulminant turns out the way I would like it to. In the future, there will be many things that I will try for the first time. It's a big experiment for me. I'll be discovering new things myself.

Good version. I write down: one vote for Zeus. 👍 Does anyone else have other versions?

Yes indeed. Forgot the link. I'm sorry and thank you for noticing this. Here: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/5412-carving-from-belgorod/page/10/

There is also another clue that can give versions in the search. If the decoration of the ship should be logically connected with the name, it is not only the main figure on the breakwater. Right? The decoration of the stern of the ship should also have the same logic. And since for this ship the sketch of the stern decoration is the only thing that can be found, the first place to look is there. What is drawn on this drawing? Can this document give us a clue? What exactly do you think is encrypted there? Who or what did the chief artist of this ship want to say by decorating the stern lock in this way?